Theory & Impro Enharmonic correctness: is it important? Advantages and disadvantages

[mark_addy]

I think I'm sunk. To find a (say) c#m7b5 chord I have to pick up a sax and play it, and then work out where my fingers went and name them. For some reason I don't do well in flat keys, so all the half steps I would likely name as sharps. I could maybe do it singing but then I wouldn't be able to name them at all! I'm amazed people can think like this without an instrument in their hands. Maybe it's one of those things you have to learn when you're a kid.

 

[Pete Thomas]

Maybe it's one of those things you have to learn when you're a kid.

I learned theory as an adult. I think it probably helps to learn it as part of a programmed course. I taught myself saxophone but I think theory is a different kettle of fish.

 

[Nick Wyver]

In my humble (bigoted, curmudgeonly, ill-educated, etc.) opinion, enharmonic correctness is a pain in the arse. I’m talking "classical" here and widening it to include "I don’t care what you think, I have chosen this key signature and I’m going to stick to it regardless, so there, ner". Some composers (I’m looking at you Messrs Dubois and Ibert) do not understand that a score is not a piece of music. It is aid to producing a piece of music by following the instructions therein. Given that is the case, I think it should be made as simple as possible. Littering the stuff with double sharps and double flats doesn’t fit with my definition of ‘simple’, especially when a change of key signature would remove all of them. Is it just those with a French Conservatoire education?

 

[skeller047]

This gets stranger when considering what key to write a saxophone part in. Especially alto/bari…

Consider the key of C# minor (same key signature as E major). Do I write that, for alto, as A# minor or Bb minor? I would choose Bb minor, for two reasons:

1: 5 flats instead of 7 sharps in the key signature
2: Raised notes (e.g. the 7th degree of the scale, often raised in minor keys) are written with naturals instead of double sharps

Both of these are for ease of reading by the poor musician who has to play the part. But perhaps purely theoretically, it’s incorrect. And of course, in older music when A# and Bb are actually different pitches, this is even more of an issue. Though saxophones are pretty firmly attached to ET tuning…

 

[Tenor Viol]

I think in reality it is somewhat dependent on the context of what you're doing. In terms of theory, the reasons for having say notating an Fb rather than an "E" is that you can't have the same 'note' twice in a scale, and if you've got an Fb, you will already have an Eb in the key signature.

If you're writing a large multi-instrument chord, then having the "correct" chord spelling makes clear what teh purpose/nature of the chord is.

However, from a practical performance perspective, enharmonic precision can be a pain in the proverbial when it comes to reading, especially like I often have to do which is sight-read something in an orchestra rehearsal. Reading through a tone cluster of semi-quavers annotated in double flats, double sharps, and other assorted accidentals can be very hard work.

Here's an example of Tchaikovsky's cello writing for the finale of the 3rd symphony, the tempo is "allegro con fuoco". At least it's not divisi celli with pairs of notes - they're a real pain to decipher. The annoying part of this example is each group of semis is a left hand shift. tbf in this example, I think annotating e.g. E#, Fx etc makes it clear.

 

[Pete Thomas]

example, I think annotating e.g. E#, Fx etc makes it clear.

Yes this is a great example of when using double sharps makes reading easier. In each case it’s a fairly certain bet it’s going to be a semitone lower than the previous and/or following note, and actually means fewer accidentals.

 

[Colin the Bear]

Saxophones are ET? Noooo. Mine are just.

 

[JSL]

I think I'm sunk. To find a (say) c#m7b5 chord I have to pick up a sax and play it, and then work out where my fingers went and name them. For some reason I don't do well in flat keys, so all the half steps I would likely name as sharps. I could maybe do it singing but then I wouldn't be able to name them at all! I'm amazed people can think like this without an instrument in their hands. Maybe it's one of those things you have to learn when you're a kid.

I hear what you're saying. Especially when it comes to a melody or most any phrase, I have to play it on the horn before I can notate it. However, chords are a different matter. I am able to work out the chord tones in my head pretty easily. C#m7b5: C# E G B. It helps to start with C#m7 (C# E G# B), then flat the 5. But you do have to get a good handle on chord construction. I often think this kind of stuff out mentally when I wake in the night. It also usually helps me get back to sleep! But I find it helpful.

Edit:
p.s. FWIW, note that if you lower the root (C#) of that C#min7b5 chord by a half step, you'll have a Cmaj7 chord: C E G B. IOW, if you raise the root of a maj7 chord by a half step it will give you a min7b5 chord, based on the raised root. Of course, to see this you need to know the maj7 chords. That said, while interesting, I don't think it's that helpful to look at it that way. Far better to see it as a min7b5 chord based on the actual root: 1 b3 b5 b7. But even there you need to know the maj7 chord (in this case C#maj7) to know the 3,5,7 chord tones you are flatting. This is why it's so important to know all 12 major scales & chords, as a foundation. Hope that makes sense.

 

[mark_addy]

I hear what you're saying. Especially when it comes to a melody or most any phrase, I have to play it on the horn before I can notate it. However, chords are a different matter. I am able to work out the chord tones in my head pretty easily. C#m7b5: C# E G B. It helps to start with C#m7 (C# E G# B), then flat the 5. But you do have to get a good handle on chord construction. I often think this kind of stuff out mentally when I wake in the night. It also usually helps me get back to sleep! But I find it helpful.

I think playing piano would help a lot with this kind of visualisation (my kids play, but when they were learning I found that there was just too much going on!). Harmony got easier for me once I learned guitar, but like most teenagers I taught myself boxes and shapes, which are not much help with note names.

 

[JSL]

I think playing piano would help a lot with this kind of visualisation

Absolutely. And see the p.s. I just added to my last post that you quoted for (maybe) an interesting observation.

 

[mark_addy]

Absolutely. And see the p.s. I just added to my last post that you quoted for (maybe) an interesting observation.

Thanks, I see what you mean and I had not thought of it like that. I think about the chords as they fit with the modes, cycle of fifths and all that - it was a big thing for me when someone explained it a long time ago, but I guess it's really basic for a trained player. I wonder sometimes about a lesson or two, but it would be like the farmer giving directions - 'if I were going there, I wouldn't start from here' 🙂

 

[turf3]

Saxophones are ET? Noooo. Mine are just.

All the standard notes (low Bb to high F) are made by tone holes positioned to achieve the closest thing to equal temperament (each half step greater than the one below it by the twelfth root of 2). Overblown octaves are accurate; 2:1 is both equal and just temperament. Once you get into altissimo, things get weird because you're using tone holes as octave vents and they're too big (this is why the front E, fingered as G, which ought to over blow to D, is a whole step higher and the front F, fingered as A, which ought to overblow to E, is a half step higher.)

If your saxophone was made to just temperament then it would be based in a particular key and notes in that key would be closer in tune than notes in more distant keys. This is not the case for the saxophone.

 

[skeller047]

If your saxophone was made to just temperament then it would be based in a particular key and notes in that key would be closer in tune than notes in more distant keys. This is not the case for the saxophone.

This is true. On my horns, they are all equally out of tune...

 

[AlonW]

In my humble (bigoted, curmudgeonly, ill-educated, etc.) opinion, enharmonic correctness is a pain in the arse. I’m talking "classical" here and widening it to include "I don’t care what you think, I have chosen this key signature and I’m going to stick to it regardless, so there, ner". Some composers (I’m looking at you Messrs Dubois and Ibert) do not understand that a score is not a piece of music. It is aid to producing a piece of music by following the instructions therein. Given that is the case, I think it should be made as simple as possible. Littering the stuff with double sharps and double flats doesn’t fit with my definition of ‘simple’, especially when a change of key signature would remove all of them. Is it just those with a French Conservatoire education?

Double sharps and double flats are just confusing. I re-write these to help me read them.

 

[cappers]

Double sharps and double flats are just confusing. I re-write these to help me read them.

At first I found double sharps and flats confusing too. This thread has helped my understanding of the convention and they now make sense in terms of chord language.

I went back to my chord charts and changed all the enharmonic equivalents I wrote to formal convention e.g. D#7 = D# F## A# C# rather than D# G Bb C#; Ab7b5 = Ab Cb Ebb Gb instead of Ab B D F#. It takes a little more thought but is more logical and easier now I understand how it works.

A year ago, the form and function of chords and their progressions, seemed an arcane mystery to me. Every day another bit of the jigsaw drops into place.

 

[PiccoloPirate]

There is nothing wrong with changing musical notation, to help with your needs/skills.
But, for serious students, that are going to audition for whatever, you might encounter double sharps/flats in the sight reading test. You get to look it over and then play.
Plenty of time to scan and think.
It would be sad, if your prepared music and tone was most excellent, but you bombed with the sight reading.
I was surprised when my buddies told me, that they had trouble with that, when they auditioned for the top conservatory high school in NYC, in '61.
They didn't make the cut, only the best did.
But, it was expected, as they were brass wind players. 😜

 

[AlonW]

There is nothing wrong with changing musical notation, to help with your needs/skills.
But, for serious students, that are going to audition for whatever, you might encounter double sharps/flats in the sight reading test. You get to look it over and then play.
Plenty of time to scan and think.
It would be sad, if your prepared music and tone was most excellent, but you bombed with the sight reading.

It's a gift to be able to not take music seriously, but be serious about it.

 

[cappers]

There is nothing wrong with changing musical notation, to help with your needs/skills.
But, for serious students, that are going to audition for whatever, you might encounter double sharps/flats in the sight reading test.

I agree and not saying it must be one way or the other, just what is best and easiest for the reader. At first I preferred to 'translate' unusual notations e.g. Gb = F#, Bbb = A etc. Now I can pretty much get what the enharmonic notation refers to without rephrasing it.

Even though I doubt that I'll ever go to an audition and be faced with a sight-reading test, I believe in doing things correctly and using the appropriate chord tone notation is to me more logical, even if challenging at first.

 

[Nick Wyver]

I believe in doing things correctly and using the appropriate chord tone notation is to me more logical, even if challenging at first.

Very commendable, but when you’ve got 4 bars of semiquavers written in what appears to be B#, it makes sense to me to rewrite it in C.

 

[turf3]

So if we look at the second bar, first group of sixteenth notes, of that Tchaikowsky excerpt, we can see that the double sharps are legible - G sharp F double sharp E sharp F double sharp tells you, looking at it, that you're going down a half step, down a whole, back up a whole. Would it be easier read as G sharp G natural F natural G natural? maybe. But I don't find it overly complex as it is. In either case you have to have an accidental at three of the four notes.

There are a lot of "typical practice" matters in copying and notating music, always containing compromises between ease of reading at sight and maintaining accurate harmonic information. These practices also change with time. In my field, jazz, there are any number of common practices that can yield kinda screwball results - many times you end up choosing between theoretical accuracy and readability - and often the readability of two options isn't much different. One guy might say A is easier to read and the next guy might say B is easier to read. I've seen a lot of charts where the tune goes into a key way off from the original, and sometimes the choice is to paste in a forest of accidentals; other times they change the key signature for that part.

I found out the time dependency of notation a while back in my double-bass studies, when I was assigned a 17th century piece. This was originally written for bassoon. So out of curiosity, I got a facsimile of the original printed version. What was really interesting was that in that time, apparently no one wanted to use ledger lines! They had used a movable clef (what is used for tenor clef today) and whenever the musical line was about to run off the staff, they scooted the clef up or down a couple lines! So the meaning of "second line" was constantly changing! And I mean they'd shift the clef, at times, every two bars. VERY difficult to read, for someone who learned in the second half of the twentieth century, when the standard is to use ledger lines and keep the meanings of the lines and spaces always the same.

So what is considered "standard practice" and "easy to read" is different from one era to another.